[DO NOT PUBLISH] 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14219

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-00061-MTT

EARL A. BRYANT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITIGROUP INC., 

CITIMORTAGE INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(March 18, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 1 of 4 
2

PER CURIAM:

Earl Bryant appeals the district court’s grant of Citigroup Inc. and 

Citimorgage, Inc.’s (“CMI”) motion to dismiss his breach of contract, fraud, and 

racketeering influenced corrupt organization violation (“RICO”) claims. 

Citigroup moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. CMI moved to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed for failure to state 

a claim. On appeal, Bryant argues that Citigroup and CMI engaged in a deceptive 

scheme and used their declaration of escrow deficiency to steal his property. 

We liberally construe pro se pleadings. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 

874 (11th Cir. 2008). However, an appellant, even when proceeding pro se, 

abandons an issue if he fails to raise it in his initial brief. Id. Further, an issue may 

be deemed abandoned where a party only mentions it in passing, without providing 

substantive argument in support. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 

(11th Cir. 1998)(refusing to reach an issue mentioned in passing in the counseled 

plaintiff’s brief because the issue had no supporting argument or discussion).

We review the dismissal of an action for lack of personal jurisdiction de 

novo. Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990).

When a district court does not conduct a discretionary evidentiary 

hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff 

must establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over a 

nonresident defendant. A prima facie case is established if the 

Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 2 of 4 
3

plaintiff presents enough evidence to withstand a motion for directed 

verdict. 

Id.

We review a district court ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6) motion de 

novo. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). While a complaint 

does not need detailed factual allegations, it requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 

167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Factual allegations must raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level. Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1965. Although ordinarily nothing beyond the 

face of the complaint and the attached documents are considered in analyzing a 

motion to dismiss, we make an exception where the plaintiff refers to a document 

in his complaint, it is central to his claim, the contents are not disputed, and the 

defendant attaches it to his motion to dismiss. Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. 

Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007). 

With respect to Citigroup Inc., the district court should have dismissed 

Bryant’s complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction because Bryant presented 

no facts that supported personal jurisdiction over Citigroup Inc. See Republic of 

Panama, 119 F.3d at 940; Madara, 916 at 1513-14. 

With respect to CMI, Bryant abandoned his arguments on appeal because he 

merely referenced the defendant’s use of a deceptive scheme of declaring “escrow 

Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 3 of 4 
4

deficiency” to take his property, without making substantive arguments to support 

his position. Timson, 518 F.3d at 874, Rowe, 139 F.3d at 1382 n.1.

However, even upon considering the merits of Bryant’s appeal, the district 

court did not err in granting CMI’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

Bryant’s conclusory allegations and lack of factual support do not meet the 

required pleading standard. See Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 

1964-65. Furthermore, contrary to Bryant’s allegations that CMI had no authority 

to require payment of an escrow deficiency, the security deed specifically states 

that the lender had the authority to do so.

Accordingly, we affirm with respect to CMI but vacate and remand with 

instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with respect to Citigroup 

Inc.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

Case: 12-14219 Date Filed: 03/18/2013 Page: 4 of 4